I think we have already established that X was never used as a symbol by the early christians to refer to themselves. The most common christian symbols are the crucifix, the chi-rho, the ichthys, the alpha and omega, the staurogram, etc. It's right there in the wiki article.

My mistake. I'll qualify everything I post to the 'nth' degree in future just in case you show up.

Furthermore, I did note that it was derogatory sometimes when I found evidence to prove it is in existence, but that comes down to context which is not applicable to my field, as it is entirely neutral in my experience, as previously stated.

The early christians NEVER used X as a symbol to refer to themselves. According to you, the earliest use of X as a reference to christians was written by samuel rogers in his diary in the 17th century -- hardly ancient. And in your vain effort to prove it is in common usage, you came up with samuel rogers' diary and its derogatory use.

As a teacher of ancient history, you would have us believe that the early christians did use the symbol to refer to themselves. That is a bald-faced lie.

And when someone points out the lie, you call him petty and quarrelsome.

I think we have already established that X was never used as a symbol by the early christians to refer to themselves. The most common christian symbols are the crucifix, the chi-rho, the ichthys, the alpha and omega, the staurogram, etc. It's right there in the wiki article.

I demonstrated that the abbreviation has been in usage where you claimed it was false. A little honesty here would be nice. The derogatory use was only seen by some in certain contexts, or did you miss that too? Otherwise the term is neutral.

As a teacher of ancient history, you would have us believe that the early christians did use the symbol to refer to themselves. That is a bald-faced lie.

One might call hypocrisy an atrocity or sin of sorts, the same with denial of one's self, since it lacks humility and humility is deemed a virtue.

The founders of this nation had their own religion, but were well versed in religious atrocities and bloody wars for dominance even within the Christian religion.

The following, penned by James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution", in essence, defines the intent and reasoning behind Amendment I and a reason to separate religion from the state (separation of church and state)

2. "Because if Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people.4 The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves."

3. "Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle.5 We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?"-James Madison - from Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, [ca. 20 June] 1785

Kinda hard to believe how some could either forget, ignore, misinterpret, skew and spin the following into oblivion, but those who aren't blind (you and lots of others) can see how it is done by some and even their motivations for doing so.

Denial is not a river in Africa, yet there appear to be some "Christians" that float on denial as if it were the river in Africa.......

Ironically, that only hurts their "religion"........through its hypocrisy.....

So, you are using an abbreviation or symbol to refer to people who never actually used that abbreviation or symbol to refer to themselves? But because you and your pals use it to footnote your papers, it is considered common usage. And because it is common usage in your field, any christian who is offended by your use of it in the public domain is merely ignorant.

"It's a common abbreviation, that is all. It is an abbreviation of the 'Chi-Rho' symbol which was itself an abbreviation used by early Christians (it is the first two Greek letters of the term 'Christ', which is a Greek word meaning 'the anointed one') . Do not take it as an insult an many are so wont to do owing to ignorance."

First, the chi-rho symbol is a topic of grade school catholic catechism. Having attended a catholic school, I am aware of the chi-rho symbol long before you.

Second, X is not a common abbreviation of the chi-rho symbol. Having attended a catholic school, it was pointed out to me that the use of the words xmas or xianity shows a lack of education hence should be avoided.

Third, some people here in this forum have felt offended by your use of the symbol, and rightly so, since X was never used by christians to refer to christ. The only reason it is 'common' is its use as a derogation -- as your offered source pointed out.

And if a person would not use a word to refer to himself, wouldn't that be a context for derogation? Some people have already expressed offense. Your reply is that they shouldn't be offended -- they are just ignorant.

I recommend works by Seaby on the Numismatics of the period; John Julius Norwich on Byzantium and Ostrogorsky on The History of Byzantium. They'll do for a start, and some of this will be available at your local library. Let me know how you get on.

Samuel rogers' diary doesn't qualify as 'common usage' nor ancient history. Or is it your contention that it does?

Re-read the quote. It stated it had been in usage since that time. Did you miss that part? I think this is the second time I've told you this. How many times do I have to go over the same old ground before it will sink in?

Re-read the exchange. I said it was a 'common abbreviation' where you stated I said it was a 'common word'. I was using your own pettifoggery back at you ~ I thought you would have realised this by now. Oh well, I found it funny.

It would be a simple matter to point me to a credible source in ancient history where the symbol X was used by Christians to refer to themselves.

In my papers in the field, and those of others yes. Is that ok with you? LOL

But because you and your pals use it to footnote your papers, it is considered common usage. And because it is common usage in your field, any christian who is offended by your use of it in the public domain is merely ignorant.

Did you forget the qualifier of the term being neutral? I believe the piece stated, "Although there is nothing offensive in the derivation of the term itself...". If it offends you that is your problem, not mine. If you choose to see it that way, then you are ignorant of the neutral nature of the term. I think you need to re-read the posted quote as you seem to be having terrible trouble understanding the simple nature of all this.

"It's a common abbreviation, that is all. It is an abbreviation of the 'Chi-Rho' symbol which was itself an abbreviation used by early Christians (it is the first two Greek letters of the term 'Christ', which is a Greek word meaning 'the anointed one') . Do not take it as an insult an many are so wont to do owing to ignorance."

I did indeed. The Chi-Rho was used by early Christians, and owing to the neutral nature of the term, it is best not to be offended by it. If one 'chooses' to be offended, then one is ignorant of the neutral nature of the term. Is that plain enough for you?

First, the chi-rho [sic] symbol is a topic of grade school catholic [sic] catechism. Having attended a catholic [sic] school, I am aware of the chi-rho [sic] symbol long before you.

I began Catholic school in the late sixties and learned the symbolism, some Latin and how to interpret Roman numerals by Grade Five IIRC. Were you in school prior to Vatican II? The Nuns or Priests never expressed any concern over the substitution of 'X' for 'Christ' (not that it was an issue at that age I suppose). You don't seem to be doing very well here, do you?

Second, X is not a common abbreviation of the chi-rho [sic] symbol. Having attended a catholic school, it was pointed out to me that the use of the words xmas or xianity shows a lack of education hence should be avoided.

Who cares what some Catholics say on the subject? Not me, and my teachers never mentioned this in any way (weird that). If some choose to take offence that's their problem and I really couldn't give a hoot, for the term is neutral. They must be snowflakes intent on looking for something to be offended by, if a simple abbreviation is going to cause so much upset, don't you think?

Third, some people here in this forum have felt offended by your use of the symbol, and rightly so, since X was never used by christians [sic] to refer to Christ.

No they haven't because I haven't used it on this forum. You really need to get some of this straight before you go on these rants. I was commenting to those who chose to take offence at what is basically a neutral term used by others. You're not very good at this, are you?

The only reason it is 'common' is its use as a derogation -- as your offered source pointed out.

Go to page

Go to page

Political Hotwire

Founded in 2005, Political Hotwire is a political forum to discuss current events, world news, and political topics. We welcome all political ideologies to discuss all political issues from civil rights to business and industry.